Well, we could just put them in prison, rehabilitate them and, if need be, provide mental health care (meds/psychology) to fix up whatever is wrong with their head. That's all I'll say about that. >__> Also, how dare you say that it's my responsibility to forgive. I alone will make the choice of whether someone is deserving of my forgiveness or not. No one gets to tell me who I should forgive.
Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree with a disconnection between forgiveness and punishment. Punishment as a tool of correction makes sense to me. It's just the death penalty that catches me. It's really hard for me to view the death penalty as anything but revenge, so linking it to forgiveness makes no sense to me.
Sure. If you want to live a life where you let someone else's deeds control you, be my guest. There's not a whole of room for grace there. You could always pick and choose which deeds you wanted to forgive, but that gets shaky pretty quickly. No one wants other people to act that way towards them. Someone could hold his "right" to never forgive you for leaving the milk open one night. That would get old, I reckon.
Exactly, it's my choice. If I want to spend my life simmering in anger and resentment, so be it. However, if I choose to let it go and move forward in my life, that will be so as well. Point is, it's my choice. If someone is seriously so vindictive that they'll treat leaving the milk out one night as an unforgivable crime, then there's nothing I can do about it. And just for the record, I choose to let go of my resentments and move forward. Life's so much more beautiful when you're not wrapped up in a tight ball of hatred and grudges towards people you've never seen in years.
You owe it to many people, but in the end to yourself. That's what Matthew 18 is all about. Forgive others their debts, and your debt will be forgiven. Something left unforgiven will only fester in your heart. It slowly destroys you, if you let it. I would classify letting something destroy you as irresponsible.
@KaTrian - it sounds like you pity that ex-friend as opposed to having forgiven her. Or maybe it's both? @BayView - I'd say just because you've forgiven someone, it doesn't mean you have to keep exposing yourself to the source of your pain. In the scenario of the cheating husband, it's possible to forgive him and walk away. Just because you no longer hold it against him and may no longer wish for his comeuppence doesn't mean you have to be around him. @Link the Writer - I'd agree that no one should force you to forgive. Forgiveness, like love, like faith, cannot be forced. Since forgiveness is never deserved, I agree that you would have the right to forgive or not forgive, and would be perfectly within your rights to withhold forgiveness. However, despite all this, it seems most would agree that forgiveness is a very good thing and the ability to forgive reflects well on the person who possesses it. This tells me it's about more than what is within your rights, but perhaps rather what's good for your soul. And I would not call it forgiveness if you continued to hate the person. I can see the argument made for nonchalance, but not hatred.
But how could you explain that outside of the phenomena of sanctification and grace? You believe because you experienced otherworldly revelation. How does the argument follow outside of that frame of reference?
Ah. I see. Now it all comes out. While I personally believe that forgiveness works best from the Biblical perspective, you don't have to. You could see it as a more pragmatic "You scratch my back, I scratch yours." No matter what, relationships work best with mutual forgiveness. That way there are no roadblocks, and you continue moving forward rather than backward. I doubt you have to believe that God exists, or His Son came to die to understand that.
What if I want to sue someone for damages? That material gain means more than water under the bridge and carry on.
That wouldn't be a benefit necessarily, would it? Sure, you could sue someone, but what advantages might you have by continuing the partnership? In a business setting, you might do nothing but raise a stink and have people detest you. Completely severing ties is always an option, but I assumed that you enjoyed the companionship with this unnamed other party. I was talking about a good approach within relationships, not the absence of relationships. I admit that forgiveness outside of Christianity is very different, but I don't find it completely impossible.
I really don't agree with the "festering" idea. I can walk away from someone and not think about them for years, but if they reappear in my life, I remember their misdeeds and haven't forgiven them. I think maybe you're taking an all-or-nothing view of forgiveness. Someone either forgives everybody for everything, ever, or someone pulls a Count of Monte Cristo and lets revenge take over their lives. Both extremes seem equally unhealthy to me. As usual, the best path is probably somewhere in the middle.
You're correct. That's all or nothing forgiveness. The only perfect kind. I believe You and I need to be forgiven for everything, or else there's no point. If you aren't forgiven for your darkest hour, why should anyone bother to forgive little misdeeds? That's like vacuuming tiny specks, but not the huge hairball. Thank God for all or nothing forgiveness. I would be nothing without it.
What have you done that's so bad? Is there a reason you wear a mask? I don't think I really need forgiveness. I mean, need it? Nah. If people forgive me for times I've hurt them, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. The world keeps on spinning.
Some people have absolutely no interest in improving or acknowledging fault. That's how diplomats get expelled from each other's lands and generals take their places. The OP asks if true forgiveness is possible, and I believe that it is if I want to. The real question to me is if it makes sense to do so. Some offences cannot be forgiven out of hand because of the risk of high blood pressure or the amount of room resentment occupies in my emotional life. Some arguments say the end result justifies the difficult process of forgiveness, but there are competing forces with their own rewards.
There you have it. There's the difference between us. You believe someone has to do something really bad to be forgiven, and I don't. You see, I haven't done anything most people would deem "bad". Most people would classify me as a "good person". I don't do drugs, haven't killed anyone, etc. But I still struggle with hating people without God's grace. I still lie. I've cheated before. Appearances don't matter. My heart without God is "desperately sick". My mask is unveiled, friend. I'm an evil person without God.
My definition of forgiveness definitely wouldn't include going on as if the cheating hadn't happened. It doesn't include "forget." In that scenario, the cheating taught you new facts about this person, and taught you that they're a person that isn't suitable for a relationship, at least not a relationship with you. So the relationship ends. Forgiven or not forgiven, that relationship is over. Forgiveness in this context, for me, would mean eventually no longer feeling anger. And if, say, the person found a way to cope with their lack of monogamy by finding an open relationship with someone else, you might be happy for their happiness. But I don't see that realistically happening in a matter of weeks or months or even single-digit years. I'm sure that there are people who can forgive huge trespasses genuinely and quickly, but I can't help wondering if that forgiveness is not really forgiveness, but instead the person's denial of their own needs. (When betrayed, I think that you need to go through the anger and hurt and bitterness.)
If someone cheated on me, and did it repeatedly, I'd tell them I'd be happy to split from them so they could be happier with someone else. It'd hurt, it'd suck, but at the end I'd realize that we are both happier on our separate roads. Her with whoever makes her happy and me with whoever makes me happy, 'cause if we were together we'd clearly be a miserable couple and that's not a fun place to be.
I don't think the biggest difference is in whether someone has to do something really bad, but in what forgiveness is good for. Forgiveness for you may be about saving your soul, but for others it may be a practical earthly matter.
No, that's not what I believe. You were the one talking about giant hairballs of badness, which made me wonder just what you'd been up to. It's too bad you're an evil person without your god. But, yeah, given that you are, I guess I can see why forgiveness would be really important to you.
What do you believe then? Do you believe you do bad things? Do you believe people only need forgiveness for certain deeds?
I don't think anyone needs forgiveness. I mean, what do you mean by "needs"? Like, cannot survive without? Or... where does "forgivness" rank on Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
Well, under Kant's view (and I realized about an hour after I posted I was thinking of Kant not Descartes, though as someone noted above maybe Descartes would have thought the same), the death penalty would be no different from any other form of punishment. Kant believed that it was absolutely necessary for society to have a system of laws, and punishment was a necessity that flowed from the necessity of having laws. His argument wouldn't be in favor of utilitarian concerns, and he wouldn't even believe that punishment was OK because it was justified. He argued it was absolutely necessary that there be a punishment. You then look a the nature of the crime and harm to determine what punishment is necessary. He rejected the idea that the punishment was vengeance (as I understand it), and felt that punishment for wrongdoing was a recognition of the autonomy of the individual. He famously wrote something to the effect that if society were crumbling it would be the duty of the last civilized person to execute the last murderer on death row, because it was a moral imperative. Of course, he just assumes that the correct punishment for murder is death. Presumably, if society proscribed another punishment then it would be the duty of the last civilized person to carry that one out. At least, that's my recollection from what I read of his views in law school. If I've got Kant wrong, someone here will likely know it and can correct what I've said.
Okay. That explains everything, I suppose. That's the gap in thought. Personally, I believe forgiveness is the most important thing in my life. Therefore, the need would be great. I suppose you have to decide for yourself where it ranks. It's the only way to cover your mistakes in the end. I find that pretty important.
So, what if you did something bad and the victim died before they could forgive you? Or what if you did something bad to a heartless bastard like me who just wouldn't forgive you. How will you "cover your mistakes" in that situation?
